Online Media
The debate over the present and future of the news industry is one that has a while left to run. The arrival of the internet, Craigslist, Google Adwords, and the ability to scan and read news without buying a newspaper, has forever changed the news-delivery model.
There have been some very interesting discussions on this topic, including those posted on www.digitaljournalist.org, which, itself, is facing financial hardships and may need to shut down. For a very strong status update of where we stand right now, and where we could/should be going, the new book Newsonomics, by analyst Ken Doctor, is a must-read for anyone who claims to be associated with journalism.
I am still reading this book and will post a review when I have finished it. In the meantime, get your own copy and get informed. The sooner you understand the true nature of what is happening in the journalism world around us, the sooner you can redefine your own future in the business.
This is from my home country, sorely missed (sometimes). How to create a 2 minute news segment in 2 minutes – watch and learn!
The Digital Journalist
The following post was written as part of a thread on the subject of saving photojournalism, written by Dirck Halstead at http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0909/how-to-start-to-save-photojournalism.html.
I have come across many posts, blogs, and articles that point to internet advertising as the future for funding on-line content. I also read industry publications such as Ad Week, Advertising Age, and PR Week. From this broader perspective, it is apparent that on-line advertising is NOT an answer that can be depended upon for the future funding of anything unless you are bought in to one of the major on-line ad platforms (Google, for example).
There are many challenges. TV and print advertising is easier to target to a specific audience, especially if you are selling a product or service geared to a well defined target market. Day-time viewing, prime-time viewing, after school viewing, late night infomercials – it is a science that goes far deeper than many of us can imagine.
You may put a print ad in a magazine that is only purchased by your target market, like a Canon ad in PDN magazine for example. But now, let’s say, you put that same Canon ad in USA Today. Will you get the same results? No. USA Today is read by a much larger volume of readers, many of whom have absolutely zero interest in seeing the latest products from a camera manufacturer. This is similar to the challenge being faced by internet advertisers. Unless they advertise only on those sites that are geared toward a specific audience, then they are trying to sell to people who have zero interest in what they are offering. And the instant gratification, short attention span nature of the internet means that it is easier than ever to click past an ad that holds no interest for you. Technology certainly allows for Canon to only show ads on sites that are photography related. But the easy access to internet advertising by almost anybody with a connection to the web means that Canon is suddenly advertising in a much more crowded market. There are more ads for camera gear on the internet, competing for attention, than you would get in a print magazine.
The advertising industry has defined this issue as an important challenge to be resolved for the continued success of their own businesses – this is not something I just made up. So if advertisers are uncertain about the value of advertising on the internet (and there is plentiful data to support this concern), then we need to consider alternative revenue sources to support the work that we do, and want to do.
One model that was discussed in Advertising Age was very interesting, and quite compelling. If you are a cable TV subscriber, perhaps just signing up for the basic package, then you will have access to only a handful of channels, most of which are pretty pathetic. But if you upgrade to a different level, you get access to more channels, HBO, Starz, Bravo etc. Those channels get their cut of viewer subscriptions to help pay for their productions. Advertising Age suggested that a similar model be applied to internet service provider (ISP) subscriptions. I get access to the internet via Comcast. It’s OK. Sometimes faster than others – but it serves me for the moment. Now if I had to pay a little more to have access to premium news content, let’s say $5/month extra for all I can eat access to the NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Washington Post, FT, BBC, Reuters etc. then I would almost certainly sign up for that, if I could no longer get that content for free. It actually makes my life a great deal easier. I do not have to manage subscriptions to multiple publications, and I have instant access to a plentiful supply of news, features, and other content. Now spread that model to publications that focus on specific interests such as lifestyle magazines, international affairs, computer information, etc. A small monthly fee to receive a flood of content on your areas of interest, without having to manage subscription payments for individual publications, would make life so much easier. And Comcast would be responsible for distributing the fees that viewers pay, to the content providers.
And THAT is where advertising will find new value. If they KNOW that there are 5 million subscribers to the “Outdoor Living” internet magazine channel, as delivered by Comcast (for example), then they will be far more likely to spend gobs of money on targeted advertising.
With this scenario, the advertising dollars can, once again, start to flow to journalists and photojournalists, allowing them to devote valuable time to researching, producing, and delivering quality content.
As I said, this is all based on discussions currently underway in the advertising industry. I think it makes a lot of sense.
These discussions are becoming more frequent, more lengthy, and somewhat more conclusive as time passes. I think that I first joined a variety of discussions on this topic, as well as creating my own, in early 2008. In the fairly short period of time between then and now, the look and feel of “traditional” photojournalism has evolved dramatically. It reminds me of the time when digital SLR’s were making their presence felt. The word on the street, and in the industry rags, was that they could never replace film. Similarly, with the transition of journalism from print to electronic delivery formats, a larger audience is finally accepting that print media is on the decline. Like film, it will continue to be available, and I would not declare it to be “dead”, but we are facing a new environment for the gathering, production, and delivery of news and documentary topics.
Some articles I see claim that journalism is dead. I cannot agree with that. The style of journalism associated with print media is on a decline, as we can see by significant layoffs of journalists at major newspapers across the country. But journalism is still very much alive, although existing in different formats.
This article gives some very topical insight in to how many photojournalism professionals are handling these transitions.
